PRITAM SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Pritam Singh petitioner seeking quashing of the orders pased by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya dated 4.7.1988 and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 1.2.1989 and directing the Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya alleging that father of the petitioner had executed a will dated 24.10.1973 in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. He had given them equal share in the property. Puran Kaur respondent No. 2 had been given a limited right. The said will did not suit respondents 1 and 2. They connived with respondent No. 3 and fabricated a forged will dated 24.10.1973. Respondent No. 2 by virtue of the said forged will was made owner of 1/3rd share of the total property. The will was scribed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed a civil suit titled Pritam Singh v. Puran Kaur in court of Subordinate Judge, Dasuya. In the said civil suit respondents 1 and 2 produced the forged will. It was alleged by the petitioner in the complaint that mutation was sanctioned by respondents 1 and 2 on basis of the forged will. On these broad facts, a complaint was filed with respect to offences punishable under Sections 420/467/471/34 IPC. The respondents were summoned and thereafter the evidence was produced by the petitioner-complainant. The witnesses were cross- examined. The learned Judicial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence on 4.7.1988 held that the evidence on the record is not sufficient for framing of the charge. If charged is framed, it will not entail the conviction of the respondents. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and the respondents were discharged. The petitioner preferred a revision petition in the court of Sessions which was dismissed.

(3.) THERE is another way of looking at the matter. As mentioned above after the respondents were discharged by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the revision petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Keeping in view sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. a second revision petition is barred. This Court would be slow to exercise its inherent powers. It would only interfere if there is an abuse of the process of the Court or the interests of justice otherwise so require. In the case of Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. Shri S. Bangarappa and others, 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 373 : JT 1995(4) S.C. 124 the same question was considered and in paragraph 12 the Supreme Court held :-